January 16, 2013

 

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) Budget Analysis, released on January 14, 2013, makes the following preliminary points regarding the Governor’s Proposition 39 in the State Budget Proposal:

 

• LAO has an issue with all of the Proposition 39 revenue used toward the Proposition 98 calculation. According to the LAO, this appears to be contrary to the Proposition 39 ballot language and goes against the “longstanding view” of how revenues are to be treated for this purpose.  Their view is that only general purpose funding should be applied to the Proposition 98 calculation and funding that is designated for a specific purpose such as clean energy projects and jobs does not meet that test.

• Under the Governor’s proposal, Proposition 39 funds are exclusively allocated to schools and community colleges without an analysis of what other eligible entities and public projects under the Proposition 39 language might provide in energy savings and job benefits.  Should study this.

• ADA and FTS funding formula on a per pupil basis presumes that the potential for energy savings and job creation needs and benefits are equal for all schools.  Assumes that all needs are equal for energy efficiency projects and ignores size, age, climate zone, etc.

• Proposition 39 language states that the Clean Energy Jobs Fund should appropriate to agencies with established expertise in managing energy projects and programs and that funding is to be coordinated with the CEC and CPUC to avoid duplication and maximize leverage.  Governor’s proposal provides funding to CDE with the option of consulting with CEC and CPUC.